Suleyman was not only a great military mind, but an extremely astute politician as well. One thing the article fails to mention is that Suleyman didn't just let the people of Rhodes "go free" after their defeat, the Knights Hospitaler had to hand over their fortresses in Kos and Bodrum as part of the deal. This was a smart move as the castle in Bodrum was much better fortified, and Suleyman got it without, in essence, firing a shot. For this reason, the castle in Bodrum is extremely well preserved and a must see if you want to get a sense of crusader architecture.
"Suleiman was respectful and generous in victory. The citizens of Rhodes were to be exempt from both taxation and conscription for the next five years. Tadini was allowed to leave. He went to the colonies of Genoa, where he again fought invading Ottoman forces and again lost.
The Order of St. John was allowed to leave in peace and build a new fortress elsewhere. They did so on Malta, where their walls could be built on stone and therefore could not be undermined. Toward the end of his life, Suleiman sent a force to conquer Malta. This time the siege failed, in part because he was not there to keep order or impose his implacable will."
This kind of graciousness in warfare does not seem to exist in modern times. Weird, considering how brutal war in those times looks compared with today.
The Siege of Malta or the Christan/Ottoman conflict as a whole is generally not considered a shining light of graciousness. During the Siege of Malta, both sides bombarded each other with human heads. A few years later at the Siege of Famagusta, the Venetians were promised safe passage if they surrendered, only to have the survivors murdered and the commander flayed alive, stuffed with straw, paraded through the streets on an ox and brought as a gift to the Sultan.
> This kind of graciousness in warfare does not seem to exist in modern times. Weird, considering how brutal war in those times looks compared with today.
Well, there was a ton of brutality then as well. Probably even much worse than today.
I think so too. In our recent conflicts when you were caught you might get shot, the ancients used torture-killing so cruel I can't even read about it without feeling sick. Not even the Nazis used something like the Brazen Bull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull), and that's just a simple device and procedure, they were much more inventive than that in the past. 1000 years ago those involved in the assassination attempt on "Der Führer" would have faced far more horrible deaths than they actually got. It seems to me even the most evil Nazis didn't have 1% of the imagination of the ancients (possibly excluding Dr. Josef Mengele, but he didn't think a about how to create pain, he just didn't care if his subjects did).
